Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corp. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Several tobacco manufacturers sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), challenging a report declaring that tobacco was a known human carcinogen. The district court ruled in favor of tobacco companies and the EPA appealed, arguing that the district court incorrectly held that the report was a final, reviewable agency decision. The Court agreed, dismissing the case.

Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corp., et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al., 313 F.3d 852 (4th Cir. 2002).

  • United States
  • Dec 11, 2002
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Parties

Plaintiff

  • Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co.
  • Council for Burley Tobacco, Inc.
  • Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Co.
  • Gallins Vending Co.
  • Philip Morris, Inc.
  • R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
  • Universal Leaf Tobacco Co., Inc.

Defendant

  • Carol M. Browner
  • The United States Environmental Protection Agency

Legislation Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"In summary, for the principal reasons that the statute forbids that the EPA carry out any regulatory program or any activity other than research, development and related reporting, information dissemination, and coordination activities specified in the Title; that there are no legal and direct consequences of the report which constitute final agency action; and that holding the report is subject to review under the APA would expose to immediate court review the various results of controversial governmental research as soon as published but before they are given regulatory effect, we are of opinion and hold that there has not been final agency action under 5 U.S.C. §§ 702 and 704. The decision of the district court is remanded for dismissal on account of want of subject matter jurisdiction. As noted, the cross appeal of the plaintiffs is denied. We do not decide the other questions raised in this case."